Gregory v. Carson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gregory v. Carson

21 A.D.2d 825, 251 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 825 (Gregory v. Carson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregory v. Carson, 21 A.D.2d 825, 251 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendants Williams and Van Eaton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, made February 5, 1964 after a pretrial conference and hearing, which granted plaintiffs a preference in trial. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated, without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs, if so advised, to move for a preference on proper proof. In our opinion, the record before us fails to disclose fully the facts on which the Justice at the pretrial conference and hearing based the exercise of his discretion in granting the preference. In the absence of a statement of the amount of each defendant’s offer of settlement and a showing of the responsibility of each of the defendants with respect to the accident in issue which involved three vehicles, the propriety of the order cannot be properly reviewed (Buonanno v. Cyr, 19 A D 2d 792). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendants Williams and Van Eaton appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, made February 5, 1964 after a pretrial conference and hearing, which granted plaintiffs a preference in trial. Order reversed, without costs, and preference vacated, without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs, if so advised, to move for a preference on proper proof. In our opinion, the record before us fails to disclose fully the facts on which the Justice at the pretrial conference and hearing based the exercise of his discretion in granting the preference. In the absence of a statement of the amount of each defendant’s offer of settlement and a showing of the responsibility of each of the defendants with respect to the accident in issue which involved three vehicles, the propriety of the order cannot be properly reviewed (Buonanno v. Cyr, 19 A D 2d 792). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 825, 251 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-carson-nyappdiv-1964.